Council Bluffs is a mid-sized town in Iowa, right on that state’s border with Nebraska. Although better known for cultivating presidential candidates than server racks, Iowa is a pretty popular site for data centers, especially new data centers built by major tech companies. Microsoft, Google, and Facebook have all built custom data centers in the state over the past seven years, and all three are expanding in the region.

Many forces have come together to shape Iowa’s data-center industry (which will be discussed in further detail in another story), but it’s the state’s history as a junction for another major network—railroads—that put it at the top of my list for Cloud sightseeing.

My favorite part of looking for network infrastructure in America is really all the ghosts. Networks tend to follow networks, and telecommunications and transportation networks tend to end up piled on top of each other. The histories of these places isn’t always immediately obvious, but it’s there, forming a kind of infrastructural palimpsest, with new technologies to annihilate space and time inheriting the idealized promise and the political messiness of their predecessors.

Iowa is no exception. It’s pretty much impossible to talk about American Internet infrastructure without talking about railroads, and Iowa is a state rich with railroad history. We came to Council Bluffs because the Union Pacific railroad route for the first transcontinental railroad began in Council Bluffs, a starting point selected for reasons both physical and political.

The selection of Council Bluffs as the start of the Union Pacific route is mostly credited to Grenville Dodge. Dodge would later become the UP’s chief engineer but first recommended the route in 1859, in an informal meeting with then-presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln. Dodge liked the route primarily because of the 42nd parallel’s uniform grade running to the Rocky Mountains—it was a route of least resistance across the plains (except, of course, all the resistance that comes from brutal winters and the Native American populations who weren’t particularly enthralled with the rhetorical promise of the railroad).

In between that meeting with Lincoln and the official selection of Council Bluffs in 1864, Dodge served in the Civil War (a war that shaped the future of railroads in America as much as the railroads shaped its outcome). In a twist of historical resonance, the chief engineer behind the western route of the transcontinental railroad was also a pioneer of military intelligence, leading a small corps that would later be absorbed into the Bureau of Military Information, the earliest formal American-government intelligence agency. A CIA history of Civil War intelligence notes Dodge’s ferocious commitment to opsec: “Well aware that telegraph wires could be tapped, he enciphered his dispatches and sent them by messenger … His security precautions were so thorough that little still is known about his operations or the names of most of his agents. When Dodge’s commander, Major General Stephen A. Hurlbut, demanded those names, Dodge refused. Hurlbut then threatened to cut off Dodge’s spy funds. [Ulysses S.] Grant backed Dodge.”

Dodge went to work for the Union Pacific in 1866, working under Charles Durant, who is the kind of historical figure who gets described in even the driest of texts as “Mephistophelean” and “a born manipulator.” Dodge and Durant had worked together during the Civil War to smuggle contraband cotton out of the south, but Durant is probably best-known for instigating the Crédit Mobilier scandal, a massive graft scheme that took advantage of the U.S. government subsidies for transcontinental-railroad construction.

Ingrid Burrington

Formed in 1864 (the same year Council Bluffs was selected as the railroad’s starting point and the same year that Durant conspicuously acquired a whole lot of soon-to-be-valuable land in Omaha, Council Bluffs’s next-door neighbor), Crédit Mobilier was the shell company through which the Union Pacific ran contracts for construction of the railroad. In turn, Crédit Mobilier purchased and sold Union Pacific bonds on the market, funnelling the profits back to its Union Pacific owners like Durant. By the time the scam was revealed in 1872, the shell company managed to reap $72 million in profits from a railroad only worth $53 million. Durant had been ousted from Crédit Mobilier and the Union Pacific long before then, resigning his posts shortly after the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869.

The histories, scoundrels, and scandals of the transcontinental railroad can’t be seen at the Google’s two data centers in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Of the two data centers, the second one (currently under construction) is a bit more spectacular. While the first data center is surrounded by bland industrial services along a fairly busy intersection, the second is literally in a cornfield, in an area where nearly every house we passed had an American flag on display out front.

Google didn’t come to Council Bluffs because of historical resonance. They came for the fiber, which runs parallel to Iowa’s many railroads and interstates. Rail infrastructure has shaped the language of the network (as noted in David A. Banks’s work on the history of the term “online”), the constellation of companies that form the network (most famously with Sprint emerging from the Southern Pacific Railroad’s internal-communications network), and, most relevant to this story, the actual routes that fiber-optic networks run.

The U.S. government supported the construction of railroads with many of the same motives that supported the development of the Internet.

Telecommunications companies quickly recognized the value of rail right-of-way as real estate for running cable networks long before the Internet—the first substantial use of rail networks for telecommunication networks starts with telegraphs. It’s a hell of a lot more efficient to run a cable along a single straight shot of property than negotiating easements with every single landowner between, say, Denver and Salt Lake City.

For railroads, this was a win-win, as the right-of-way agreements generate passive income, and the networks could be used for internal operations of the railroads themselves. As the first dot-com bubble expanded, more and more telecoms rushed to place their cables along rail routes. This New YorkTimesstory from 2000 documents the moment well; it also uses the delightful (and today, woefully underused) term “cyberage” and mentions an exciting new player in the telecom scene, Enron Broadband Services. Some railroad companies followed Sprint’s suit in this period, creating their own telecom services, like CSX Fiber Networks.

The markers of this right-of-way race along railroad routes (and highways, which have a similar right-of-way appeal to telecoms) are not especially impressive, but pretty hard to ignore. They usually take the form of orange-tipped white poles, or orange metal signs, spaced out a few meters apart running parallel to the rails. The orange part usually has a label warning people to call before digging, a phone number to call, and sometimes the name of the company or government agency that happens to own the buried cable. Labeled this way, fiber markers become a testament to telecom history, bearing names of companies that fell in the bursting of the first bubble, long ago absorbed into larger telecom networks. The new owners apparently don’t bother replacing the poles with their names or logos—presumably because it’s not really financially worthwhile to send someone to put Level 3 stickers over thousands of Global Crossing or Williams Communications logos on signage that’s more or less designed to be ignored by 99 percent of the public, like most network infrastructure.

Ingrid Burrington

Google’s Iowa data centers aren’t entirely designed to be ignored. Given their massive scale, they don’t really blend into the landscape that well, and because Google brands itself as open and accessible, they kind of have to call attention to themselves with accents of the traditional company color scheme and signage. Google data centers are more often obscured through landscape design choices and a security-through-obscurity logic. Placed beneath cresting hills or along thoroughfares that don’t have readily accessible shoulders, they are hard to really stop and look at, remaining unknown industrial buildings always glimpsed just barely out of the corner of one’s eye while driving.

While Google does offer a polished, carefully curated online tour of their data centers, they don’t tend to publicize their addresses or talk in great detail about what they’re doing inside. And they go to great lengths to shield that information when it inadvertently appears, as seen in the Pluto Switch incident in 2012.

In the end, I was a little disappointed at the apparent pragmatism of Google’s decision to place its Iowa data centers in the starting point of the transcontinental railroad. Surely someone in the company had a sense of irony, or at least a sense of legacy. The history of American networks has always been the history of spooks, graft, questionable labor and supply chains, and territorial conquest, long before the Internet acquired its history rife with spooks, graft, questionable labor and supply chains, and territorial conquest. It also is a history that, despite the meritocratic bootstrapping narratives of the Valley, has always been driven by the financial support and influence of the state. The U.S. government heavily subsidized and supported the construction of railroads for the same reasons it subsidized and supported the development of the Internet itself: military strategy, economic development, and a zealous, romantic vision of the both liberatory and unifying potential of being able to traverse or defy the limits of greater and greater distances.

Sam Kronick

I keep going back to a very early example of this faith in networks, a passage from Bloodgood vs. Mohawk & H.R.R., an easement case from 1837. In it, the judge describes the inherent value of railroads thusly: “...they tend to annihilate distance, bringing in effect places that are distant near to each other: tending in their magic influence to the extension of personal acquaintance, the enlargement of business relations, and cementing more firmly the bond of fellowship and union between the inhabitants of the States.” It is difficult to read this hopeful passage and not be reminded of J.P. Barlow in Davos exalting the liberation of the “global conveyance of thought” in 1996.

Our pilgrimage to Council Bluffs failed to feature too many obvious moments of resonance (it did not help that we passed through the day that the Union Pacific Railroad Museum happened to be closed). But flickers of freight rail and orange markers alongside highways followed us through Iowa, keeping the ghosts of annihilated distance if not always in mind then at least out of the corner of my eye, as we drove toward arguably the most unexpected pilgrimage I’ve ever made: a tour of a Facebook data center.

Most Popular

Congressional Republicans and conservative pundits had the chance to signal Trump his attacks on law enforcement are unacceptable—but they sent the opposite message.

President Trump raged at his TV on Sunday morning. And yet on balance, he had a pretty good weekend. He got a measure of revenge upon the hated FBI, firing former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe two days before his pension vested. He successfully coerced his balky attorney general, Jeff Sessions, into speeding up the FBI’s processes to enable the firing before McCabe’s retirement date.

Beyond this vindictive fun for the president, he achieved something politically important. The Trump administration is offering a not very convincing story about the McCabe firing. It is insisting that the decision was taken internally by the Department of Justice, and that the president’s repeated and emphatic demands—public and private—had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The first female speaker of the House has become the most effec­tive congressional leader of modern times—and, not coinciden­tally, the most vilified.

Last May, TheWashington Post’s James Hohmann noted “an uncovered dynamic” that helped explain the GOP’s failure to repeal Obamacare. Three current Democratic House members had opposed the Affordable Care Act when it first passed. Twelve Democratic House members represent districts that Donald Trump won. Yet none voted for repeal. The “uncovered dynamic,” Hohmann suggested, was Nancy Pelosi’s skill at keeping her party in line.

She’s been keeping it in line for more than a decade. In 2005, George W. Bush launched his second presidential term with an aggressive push to partially privatize Social Security. For nine months, Republicans demanded that Democrats admit the retirement system was in crisis and offer their own program to change it. Pelosi refused. Democratic members of Congress hosted more than 1,000 town-hall meetings to rally opposition to privatization. That fall, Republicans backed down, and Bush’s second term never recovered.

Invented centuries ago in France, the bidet has never taken off in the States. That might be changing.

“It’s been completely Americanized!” my host declares proudly. “The bidet is gone!” In my time as a travel editor, this scenario has become common when touring improvements to hotels and resorts around the world. My heart sinks when I hear it. To me, this doesn’t feel like progress, but prejudice.

Americans seem especially baffled by these basins. Even seasoned American travelers are unsure of their purpose: One globe-trotter asked me, “Why do the bathrooms in this hotel have both toilets and urinals?” And even if they understand the bidet’s function, Americans often fail to see its appeal. Attempts to popularize the bidet in the United States have failed before, but recent efforts continue—and perhaps they might even succeed in bringing this Old World device to new backsides.

As the Trump presidency approaches a troubling tipping point, it’s time to find the right term for what’s happening to democracy.

Here is something that, even on its own, is astonishing: The president of the United States demanded the firing of the former FBI deputy director, a career civil servant, after tormenting him both publicly and privately—and it worked.

The American public still doesn’t know in any detail what Andrew McCabe, who was dismissed late Friday night, is supposed to have done. But citizens can see exactly what Donald Trump did to McCabe. And the president’s actions are corroding the independence that a healthy constitutional democracy needs in its law enforcement and intelligence apparatus.

McCabe’s firing is part of a pattern. It follows the summary removal of the previous FBI director and comes amid Trump’s repeated threats to fire the attorney general, the deputy attorney, and the special counsel who is investigating him and his associates. McCabe’s ouster unfolded against a chaotic political backdrop which includes Trump’s repeated calls for investigations of his political opponents, demands of loyalty from senior law enforcement officials, and declarations that the job of those officials is to protect him from investigation.

How evangelicals, once culturally confident, became an anxious minority seeking political protection from the least traditionally religious president in living memory

One of the most extraordinary things about our current politics—really, one of the most extraordinary developments of recent political history—is the loyal adherence of religious conservatives to Donald Trump. The president won four-fifths of the votes of white evangelical Christians. This was a higher level of support than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, an outspoken evangelical himself, ever received.

Trump’s background and beliefs could hardly be more incompatible with traditional Christian models of life and leadership. Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance. This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage. His lawyer reportedly arranged a $130,000 payment to a porn star to dissuade her from disclosing an alleged affair. Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers. We are a long way from The Book of Virtues.

Much more than time separates the 27th president from the 45th: from their vastly different views on economics, to their conceptions of the presidency itself.

As Donald Trump’s executive orders punishing steel and aluminum imports threaten a trade war around the globe, Republicans on Capitol Hill are debating whether to reassert Congress’s ultimate constitutional authority over tariffs and trade. This isn’t the first time the GOP has split itself in two on the question of protective tariffs. But the last time, just over 100 years ago, the Republican president’s policies were the exact opposite of Trump’s.

William Howard Taft—in his opposition to populism and protectionism, as well as his devotion to constitutional limits on the powers of the presidency—was essentially the anti-Trump. Unlike the current president, and his own predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft refused to rule by executive order, insisting that the chief executive could only exercise those powers that the Constitution explicitly authorizes.

Among the more practical advice that can be offered to international travelers is wisdom of the bathroom. So let me say, as someone who recently returned from China, that you should be prepared to one, carry your own toilet paper and two, practice your squat.

I do not mean those goofy chairless sits you see at the gym. No, toned glutes will not save you here. I mean the deep squat, where you plop your butt down as far as it can go while staying aloft and balanced on the heels. This position—in contrast to deep squatting on your toes as most Americans naturally attempt instead—is so stable that people in China can hold it for minutes and perhaps even hours ...

The debate around sexual-harassment legislation is playing out in the Maryland General Assembly, where reform advocates say leadership is loath to embrace changes.

In Maryland, legislative sessions run 90 days, from January through early April. On the final day of each session—commonly referred to by the Latin term sine die—the capital city of Annapolis lets its hair down. There is dining and dancing and parties galore as aides, lawmakers, and lobbyists celebrate having survived the season.

A few years back, at one sine die soiree hosted by a legislator, a former Annapolis aide (who requested anonymity because she remains involved in Maryland politics) took to the dance floor. “I was dancing a little bit by myself,” she recalled. “All of a sudden I hear, ‘You’re packing a little bit more than I thought back here!’ I turn around, and this legislator is dancing right behind me. I was like, ‘Ooookay. This is a little weird. I know your wife and kids.’ So I tried to subtly move away.” The legislator followed, recalled the ex-aide. And then: “He got aroused.” The young woman made a swift escape, and, she informed me, “I have not spoken to that legislator one-on-one since.”

Scholars have been sounding the alarm about data-harvesting firms for nearly a decade. The latest Cambridge Analytica scandal shows it may be too late to stop them.

On Friday night, Facebook suspended the account of Cambridge Analytica, the political-data company backed by the billionaire Robert Mercer that consulted on both the Brexit and Trump campaigns.

The action came just before The Guardian and The New York Timesdropped major reports in which the whistle-blower Christopher Wylie alleged that Cambridge Analytica had used data that an academic had allegedly improperly exfiltrated from the social network. These new stories, backed by Wylie’s account and internal documents, followed years of reporting by The Guardianand The Intercept about the possible problem.

The details could seem Byzantine. Aleksandr Kogan, then a Cambridge academic, founded a company, Global Science Research, and immediately took on a major client, Strategic Communication Laboratories, which eventually gave birth to Cambridge Analytica. (Steve Bannon, an adviser to the company and a former senior adviser to Trump, reportedly picked the name.)

Although the former secretary of state’s contentious relationship with the president didn’t help matters, Tillerson’s management style left a department in disarray.

Rex Tillerson is hardly the first person to be targeted in a tweet from Donald Trump, but on Tuesday morning, he became the first Cabinet official to be fired by one. It was an ignominious end to Tillerson’s 13-month stint as secretary of state, a tenure that would have been undistinguished if it weren’t so entirely destructive.

Compared with expectations for other members of Trump’s Cabinet, the disastrous results of Tillerson’s time in office are somewhat surprising. Unlike the EPA’s Scott Pruitt, Tillerson did not have obvious antipathy for the department he headed; unlike HUD’s Ben Carson, he had professional experience that was relevant to the job; and unlike Education’s Betsy DeVos, his confirmation hearing wasn't a disaster.